State v. Colosimo: Minnesota Anglers' Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Becomes 'The One that Got Away'

28 Pages Posted: 1 Dec 2011  

Edwin Butterfoss

Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Joseph L. Daly

Hamline University

Date Written: January 1, 2004

Abstract

In State v. Colosimo, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that an expectation of privacy does not exist in a boat or other conveyance typically used to transport fish and it is therefore permissible for an armed conversation officer to conduct a nonconsensual inspection of the boat or other conveyance. This article examines the various opinions in the Colosimo case, including the opinion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals (which was reversed by the supreme court), as well as the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions of the supreme court. The authors provide a brief background of how the issue of stops and inspections by conservation officers has been dealt with in other jurisdictions before turning to a critique of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Colosimo, which the authors consider far too expansive.

Keywords: Search and seizure, State v. Colosimo, boat laws, Minnesota Statutes section 97A.251, anglers, fish

JEL Classification: K32, Q22, Q28

Suggested Citation

Butterfoss, Edwin and Daly, Joseph L., State v. Colosimo: Minnesota Anglers' Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Becomes 'The One that Got Away' (January 1, 2004). William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 527, 2004. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1932949

Edwin Butterfoss (Contact Author)

Mitchell Hamline School of Law ( email )

875 Summit Ave.
Saint Paul, MN MN 55105
United States
65152906393 (Phone)

Joseph L. Daly

Hamline University ( email )

1536 Hewitt Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104-1237
United States
651 523 2121 (Phone)
651 523 2236 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.hamline.edu/personal/jdaly

Paper statistics

Downloads
20
Abstract Views
553